Are there any photos documenting the negative aspects of a "Steep Deep"
- Thread starter Rockdiamond
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2008
- Messages
- 10,261
Painting????? I thought that was best left to canvas! Can I really do a Mona Lisa on a diamond? W
W
Digging?????? Well I do that in the garden but I somehow doubt that's what's being referenced here. Although I do wear gloves to protect my diamond!
*runs away and hides before REALLY asking "what IS painting and digging?"*
Digging?????? Well I do that in the garden but I somehow doubt that's what's being referenced here. Although I do wear gloves to protect my diamond!
*runs away and hides before REALLY asking "what IS painting and digging?"*
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,276
Painting and digging is altering the angle of facets near the girdle.
The motivation can be weight retention or improving the appearance.
It is controversial.
It can result in solid blood-red Idealscope images (more light return by eliminating those triangles of contrast leakage) such as in the Eightstar diamond and that New Line Whiteflash ACA, which may be a thing of the past.
(A search on Whiteflash for "new line aca" found no results.)
Allison, is the new line ACA discontinued? If so, why?
I think some labs penalize diamonds that are painted and dug over a certain degree.
This is my understanding in a nutshell.
If incorrect I hope someone will correct me.
People avoid discussing P&D because. . . well because . . . I don't know . . . why do people avoid discussing P&D?
[Irony is asking people why they won't discuss something.]
The motivation can be weight retention or improving the appearance.
It is controversial.
It can result in solid blood-red Idealscope images (more light return by eliminating those triangles of contrast leakage) such as in the Eightstar diamond and that New Line Whiteflash ACA, which may be a thing of the past.
(A search on Whiteflash for "new line aca" found no results.)
Allison, is the new line ACA discontinued? If so, why?
I think some labs penalize diamonds that are painted and dug over a certain degree.
This is my understanding in a nutshell.
If incorrect I hope someone will correct me.
People avoid discussing P&D because. . . well because . . . I don't know . . . why do people avoid discussing P&D?
[Irony is asking people why they won't discuss something.]
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
yea,when Alj was Alj.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2008
- Messages
- 10,261
Thank you Kenny! It''s been one of those burning questions that I''ve been too scared to ask!
RD - just to bring this back on topic, I honestly didn''t know anything about steep/deep before this thread and I''ve found it invaluable so thank you for posting up. I must say however that the photos that have been provided clearly (to me) show the effects of a steep/deep. In fact, I''ve been able to pick it out quite clearly which is invaluable as a learning tool. I know nothing about the effects of lighting but I am curious to see the diamond you referenced earlier under similar lighting conditions (rather than your normal set up) to those taken by others. You may well be right that it will make no difference to your diamond but I''m incredibly curious to see - I hope you don''t mind me asking?
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 3,563
Kenny that''s a humbling endorsement. Knowing the value you place on integrity, quality and detail it means a lot. Sincere thanks.Date: 11/24/2009 4:32:07 PM
Author: kenny
Thanks John, no problem.
I have nothing but respect for you . . . oh and lots of admiration.
Your transparency and honest unbiased pursuit of the truth has always been exemplary here.
You have always represented diamonds of the best cut so all the technical discussions reflect well on your merchandise.
You are someone I''d buy a diamond from sight unseen just based on your word, regardless of whom you worked for.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,461
I do not see any reason with that thick girdle for the stone to be steep or deep David?
It would be interesting for the obstruction thread to see how this diamond looks in your "normal" photographic mode as we certainly have not seen that yet. Because clearly in all these images you have the camera very close to the diamond.
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
Badly cut? When I first saw that pic (before I read) I thought, wow that looks prettier than most of the diamonds I''ve seen - it looked chunkier or curvier than those straight edge h&a - I dunno that you can really pin this down to a singularity but I''m glad you all enjoy (to varying degrees) the pursuit of it
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 3,563
Psst...
Start here.
http://www.gia.edu/diamondcut/pdf/6_05_RDR_pg239_243pdf.pdf
Then here.
http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/15/1/The-Effects-of-Indexed-Upper-Half-Facets.aspx
And here.
http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/45/1/Visible-Effects-of-Painting--Digging-on-Superideal-Diamonds.aspx
And then you can do this...I suggest you pop a tub of popcorn and settle in.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,276
I'm thoroughly confused.
RD started this thread and picked a round diamond of his to photograph.
He took 3 pics with:
1. No light entering pavilion
2. A little light entering pavilion
3. More light entering pavilion.
Each time the diamond looked brighter.
But then Garry points out that this diamond is ________ (someone please fill in blank). - a steep but not a deep or something. ? !
Now were are we?
How does it being whatever Garry said it is affect the point of this thread, steep-deep diamonds?
Do we ignore the 3 pics because the diamond did not qualify?
Will someone please connect the dots?
Is RD planning on finding a better example of a steep deep round to repeat these 3 pics?
If not does any other diamond vendor have a good representative steep deep and want to take the pics.
I'd do it if I had such a diamond.
If a vendor trusts me and wants to mail me a perfect candidate steep deep I'd be happy to spend hours and hours taking lot of of pics in many test situations.
Yes, I'll return it.
This would add the benefit of the photographer having no financial stake in the outcome.
Everyone could agree it is a good example before deciding on the diamond.
IOW this thread is not exactly bursting with clarity about steep deep diamonds.
It seems to veer into confusing dead ends, resulting in customers learning nothing. (Maybe that's the point.)
Finding a steep deep and taking these 3 pics seems like a very simple job, but here we are 11 pages later and it has not happened.
RD started this thread and picked a round diamond of his to photograph.
He took 3 pics with:
1. No light entering pavilion
2. A little light entering pavilion
3. More light entering pavilion.
Each time the diamond looked brighter.
But then Garry points out that this diamond is ________ (someone please fill in blank). - a steep but not a deep or something. ? !
Now were are we?
How does it being whatever Garry said it is affect the point of this thread, steep-deep diamonds?
Do we ignore the 3 pics because the diamond did not qualify?
Will someone please connect the dots?
Is RD planning on finding a better example of a steep deep round to repeat these 3 pics?
If not does any other diamond vendor have a good representative steep deep and want to take the pics.
I'd do it if I had such a diamond.
If a vendor trusts me and wants to mail me a perfect candidate steep deep I'd be happy to spend hours and hours taking lot of of pics in many test situations.
Yes, I'll return it.
This would add the benefit of the photographer having no financial stake in the outcome.
Everyone could agree it is a good example before deciding on the diamond.
IOW this thread is not exactly bursting with clarity about steep deep diamonds.
It seems to veer into confusing dead ends, resulting in customers learning nothing. (Maybe that's the point.)
Finding a steep deep and taking these 3 pics seems like a very simple job, but here we are 11 pages later and it has not happened.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,725
You're also 100% correct that it takes a thick skin to challenge assumptions here.Date: 11/24/2009 4:21:15 PM
Author: John Pollard
Kenny and RD,
If this was addressed to me I was trying for humor Kenny. The cartoons and sage/thyme talk was tongue-in-cheek. I presumed you'd get the joke, remembering your personal interest and helpful actions in pursuing that topic. I'd also remind you that I was one of the biggest sunlight proponents, doing considerable research and orchestrating a cross-lab study with input from AGSL and GIA for the journal here.
It was also meant to defuse tension. Ergo...cartoons.Sorry if it came out the wrong way.
While discussion is healthy, creating fear-based doubts for new consumers based on a thread that may have nothing to do with their diamond is not healthy. Occasionally people lobby for a technical forum away from RT where pros and seasoned enthusiasts could carry on without newbies presuming the 10-page-thread de jour must also have to do with whatever diamond they are considering.
Typical Post: I'm new here but I saw a GIA EX Cut grade diamond in a jewelry store. I liked it but wanted to check if it was a good stone. It was xxx xxx xxx.
Common Response: That's a borderline steep deep bound to have obstruction issues. You can do better.
John,
The above exchange was made up- but many real ones take place here- such statements are used to place fear and doubt into a consumer.
Asking to see what dark centers look like on diamonds does not create fear- it attempts to "demystify" these terms like "Steep Deep" and "obstruction issues".
The fact I found a diamond that demonstrates what a dark center looks like should be a positive addition to the conversation, regardless if it is or is not indeed, what's referred to as a "Steep Deep".
You're absolutely right that it takes thick-skin to post here. I would actually refer you to some of the painting threads alluded-to above. There were epic battles that explored more limits than these threads do, if memory serves. In the end cool heads and cool posts prevailed...on both sides of the issue.
People are pretty smart. They read tone as well as content and can ultimately judge what's fair & reasonable.
As always, a discussion with you John is pleasurable, informative, and polite.
There's more than enough scam artists and legitimately bad offers to educate people to.
We all agree that informing consumers about how to buy diamonds is a good idea.
That I feel differently about how to do could be interesting and lively conversation.
John, I do have to disagree with a comparison you made about lively conversation.
In the threads you refer to I doubt that anyone was questioning a person's honesty, or business integrity.
If one does not like my photos, they are free to say so .
But to directly state I'm using some sort of methodology to fool people is an attack.
I've never put a light behind a diamond as part of a picture set up. You can see this in photos of rings- including those taken on hands on our site. How can you "back light ' a ring on a finger?
You can see reflections coming of the front of the diamonds in our videos.
Not that I have any problem with someone questioning anything we do.
If it was done in a polite way it could be a nice conversation.
Accusations of deceptive photography bother me not at all. It probably drives people to look at our site, and I've nothing to be ashamed of- in fact, just the opposite.
We also agree that readers are smart enough to make up their own minds.
My question about does anyone else mind the attacks was largely rhetorical.
My questioning of these principles- and the fear created when catch words are thrown about has gotten some people angry for years.
Regardless, it's clearly interesting to many.
It's not that I'm afraid of the questions, but at this point, I am not really enjoying the prevailing attitude in this thread which basically sanctions attacks.
Karl and his dogs can attack someone else today.
It's Kenny's thread now- that and Karls dogs.
It was my goal to help people know what to look for when the term "Steep Deep" gets thrown around.
Without doubt people will still get warned about stones that may be more their preference than others that fit the "PS mold.
Thanks for everyone who put a positive note in.
I'm going to finish my involvement in this thread by providing the photo Garry asked for- my "normal" setup.
Which is basically however I can capture what I feel is the essence of the diamond. I take the photos free hand. No "fixed set up"
Kind of like how people look at diamonds in real life, but close up.
The reason I will likely not stock this diamond have more to do with the difficulty in capturing it's personality and color- this is due more to fluorescence than anything else.
GIA gave it fair symmetry due to the fact some of the pavilion facets are not properly formed. There only 7 arrows. I can say it's not well cut from a technical standpoint compared to a colorless round, however it is not supposed to look like that.
Although I was able to coax a very dark centered photo out of the diamond, the stone still manages to look pretty decent in person.
This photo is descriptive ( to my eye) in it's own way. Not for color- but for facet patterns, and areas you might call leakage.
Thanks again for everyone who read posted and enjoyed the thread
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 14,685
rofl
no that is not the response from the ps pro-sumers because they know that steep deep is leakage it is shallow pavilions and or lgf% mismatches that cause obstruction issues.
If you gonna gripe about pro-sumers at least get the basic diamond 201 facts right.
ChunkyCushionLover
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,463
^^^^^^^^^^^ Right so in this diamond there is no dark ring anymore. Your normal way of photographing diamonds once again would totally hide the effect you had shown in the previous photograph.Date: 11/24/2009 9:11:21 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
You're also 100% correct that it takes a thick skin to challenge assumptions here.Date: 11/24/2009 4:21:15 PM
Author: John Pollard
Kenny and RD,
If this was addressed to me I was trying for humor Kenny. The cartoons and sage/thyme talk was tongue-in-cheek. I presumed you'd get the joke, remembering your personal interest and helpful actions in pursuing that topic. I'd also remind you that I was one of the biggest sunlight proponents, doing considerable research and orchestrating a cross-lab study with input from AGSL and GIA for the journal here.
It was also meant to defuse tension. Ergo...cartoons.Sorry if it came out the wrong way.
While discussion is healthy, creating fear-based doubts for new consumers based on a thread that may have nothing to do with their diamond is not healthy. Occasionally people lobby for a technical forum away from RT where pros and seasoned enthusiasts could carry on without newbies presuming the 10-page-thread de jour must also have to do with whatever diamond they are considering.
Typical Post: I'm new here but I saw a GIA EX Cut grade diamond in a jewelry store. I liked it but wanted to check if it was a good stone. It was xxx xxx xxx.
Common Response: That's a borderline steep deep bound to have obstruction issues. You can do better.
John,
The above exchange was made up- but many real ones take place here- such statements are used to place fear and doubt into a consumer.
Asking to see what dark centers look like on diamonds does not create fear- it attempts to 'demystify' these terms like 'Steep Deep' and 'obstruction issues'.
The fact I found a diamond that demonstrates what a dark center looks like should be a positive addition to the conversation, regardless if it is or is not indeed, what's referred to as a 'Steep Deep'.
You're absolutely right that it takes thick-skin to post here. I would actually refer you to some of the painting threads alluded-to above. There were epic battles that explored more limits than these threads do, if memory serves. In the end cool heads and cool posts prevailed...on both sides of the issue.
People are pretty smart. They read tone as well as content and can ultimately judge what's fair & reasonable.
As always, a discussion with you John is pleasurable, informative, and polite.
There's more than enough scam artists and legitimately bad offers to educate people to.
We all agree that informing consumers about how to buy diamonds is a good idea.
That I feel differently about how to do could be interesting and lively conversation.
John, I do have to disagree with a comparison you made about lively conversation.
In the threads you refer to I doubt that anyone was questioning a person's honesty, or business integrity.
If one does not like my photos, they are free to say so .
But to directly state I'm using some sort of methodology to fool people is an attack.
I've never put a light behind a diamond as part of a picture set up. You can see this in photos of rings- including those taken on hands on our site. How can you 'back light ' a ring on a finger?
You can see reflections coming of the front of the diamonds in our videos.
Not that I have any problem with someone questioning anything we do.
If it was done in a polite way it could be a nice conversation.
Accusations of deceptive photography bother me not at all. It probably drives people to look at our site, and I've nothing to be ashamed of- in fact, just the opposite.
We also agree that readers are smart enough to make up their own minds.
My question about does anyone else mind the attacks was largely rhetorical.
My questioning of these principles- and the fear created when catch words are thrown about has gotten some people angry for years.
Regardless, it's clearly interesting to many.
It's not that I'm afraid of the questions, but at this point, I am not really enjoying the prevailing attitude in this thread which basically sanctions attacks.
Karl and his dogs can attack someone else today.
It's Kenny's thread now- that and Karls dogs.
It was my goal to help people know what to look for when the term 'Steep Deep' gets thrown around.
Without doubt people will still get warned about stones that may be more their preference than others that fit the 'PS mold.
Thanks for everyone who put a positive note in.
I'm going to finish my involvement in this thread by providing the photo Garry asked for- my 'normal' setup.
Which is basically however I can capture what I feel is the essence of the diamond. I take the photos free hand. No 'fixed set up'
Kind of like how people look at diamonds in real life, but close up.
The reason I will likely not stock this diamond have more to do with the difficulty in capturing it's personality and color- this is due more to fluorescence than anything else.
GIA gave it fair symmetry due to the fact some of the pavilion facets are not properly formed. There only 7 arrows. I can say it's not well cut from a technical standpoint compared to a colorless round, however it is not supposed to look like that.
Although I was able to coax a very dark centered photo out of the diamond, the stone still manages to look pretty decent in person.
This photo is descriptive ( to my eye) in it's own way. Not for color- but for facet patterns, and areas you might call leakage.
Thanks again for everyone who read posted and enjoyed the thread
So just to sum up what I have learned from this 11 page thread(not much but here goes):
1) The same poorly cut diamond can be photographed in different lighting environments and some of them will hide its flaws, whether they be leakage or obstruction.
2) It is important to consider in a photograph, how far the lense is away from the diamond (this will affect shadow and obstruction) the position of the light source and how much light gets to the diamond from the back or side.
3) A subjective decision on what photograph sells the diamond or represents the diamond most accurately is just that subjective, and is the primary reason why PS doesn't reccomend using photographs as the sole criteria for determinig cut and light return.
4) From photographs one will rarely see an obvious flaw in a diamond in many lighting conditions, expecially if a vendor would like to illustrate the diamond in the most positive way possible, so our ability to descriminate one diamond from another based on a photograph is severely diminished.
Hopefully this thread will die now.
Regards,
CCL
ChunkyCushionLover
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,463
Kenny,
The dots are already connected but I think you know that
. Its very simple, a photograph does not show leakage easily, unless one goes to great lengths to increase the contrast.We have a few examples in this thread of photographs with good enough contrast (through a hearts viewer, with a red background etc.) to show the leakage clearly but those are few and far between.
RD would have saved himself a lot of argument and embarassment and about 8 pages if he had simply accepted why we use an idealscope in controlled lightining conditions to illustrate leakage and as a comparison tool instead of a photograph.
His opinion that a little leakage is okay and that he doesn't differentiate diamonds based on a little leakage or obstruction is quite another issue and not nearly as interesting or worthy of 11 pages.
I still have no idea why ithere is any problem with using HCA and stating this diamond may be a "Steep Deep" check for leakage with an Idealscope. But oh well I'm not a vendor trying to sell diamonds nor trying to sell GIA EX EX EX as being as good as ideal cut diamonds with no negligible leakage.
Good-Night
CCL
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,276
Speaking of obstruction causing diamonds to pick up darkness from a lens that has to be close when you are in macro mode. . .
I had this problem which is why I just bought a new lens. (actually it is 30 years old)
My old lens, a micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8, had to be almost kissing the diamond to get full magnification.
The new one, a micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8, can be almost a foot away at full magnification.
This is wonderful, (not only because a close huge black lens is not being reflected back by the diamond) but having a much greater working distance also lets more light into the front of the diamond.
So, if you have an SLR and are considering buying a macro lens to shoot diamonds select one with the longest working distance possible.
I had this problem which is why I just bought a new lens. (actually it is 30 years old)
My old lens, a micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8, had to be almost kissing the diamond to get full magnification.
The new one, a micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8, can be almost a foot away at full magnification.
This is wonderful, (not only because a close huge black lens is not being reflected back by the diamond) but having a much greater working distance also lets more light into the front of the diamond.
So, if you have an SLR and are considering buying a macro lens to shoot diamonds select one with the longest working distance possible.
John, GIA article has completely wrong statements why cutters use Painting. GIA did wrong conclusions about connections between painting-digout and yield . GIA forgot consider rough surface . I doubt what this GIA article is good for consumer education, because it has misleading information
in most critical points. ( for same reason GIA early gave wrong cut grade for diamonds as *
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 3,563
I like to give balanced representation, which is why I linked subject matter from GIA, AGSL and PS.Date: 11/25/2009 2:08:38 AM
Author: Serg
John, GIA article has completely wrong statements why cutters use Painting. GIA did wrong conclusions about connections between painting-digout and yield . GIA forgot consider rough surface . I doubt what this GIA article is good for consumer education, because it has misleading information in most critical points. ( for same reason GIA early gave wrong cut grade for diamonds as *
You're right, the GIA piece is nearly 5 years old. You may remember that Brian Gavin and I reacted strongly when it came out, and worked heavily with both GIA and AGSL to produce the third piece I linked? Reading through the different articles I trust that intelligent readers will come to intelligent conclusions.
Date: 11/25/2009 10:28:24 AM
Author: John Pollard
Date: 11/25/2009 2:08:38 AM
Author: Serg
John, GIA article has completely wrong statements why cutters use Painting. GIA did wrong conclusions about connections between painting-digout and yield . GIA forgot consider rough surface . I doubt what this GIA article is good for consumer education, because it has misleading information in most critical points. ( for same reason GIA early gave wrong cut grade for diamonds as *
I like to give balanced representation, which is why I linked subject matter from GIA, AGSL and PS.
You''re right, the GIA piece is nearly 5 years old. You may remember that Brian Gavin and I reacted strongly when it came out, and worked heavily with both GIA and AGSL to produce the third piece I linked? Reading through the different articles I trust that intelligent readers will come to intelligent conclusions.
John,
1)GAI article has wrong statements about reason for painting . they forgot account what increasing girdle thickness in halves Usually demand to decrease diameter . So painting is not good way to increase yield. for other reason GIA statement about dig-out was wrong too
2) Peter Y. did not discuss about yield, but his statements about spread could easy create wrong understanding for consumers about yield for painting diamonds and cutter motivation. I hope you remember my and Janak discussion with Peter about connection between Yield and painting-digout.
3) I did not find in Brain article information how painting changes yield.
So I do not see balanced representation for painting in this 3 articles. first two create consumer scare-mondering about painting. ( however most consumer will not understand last 3 pages in Peter article)
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2008
- Messages
- 10,261
Oooops that leaves me out thenDate: 11/25/2009 10:28:24 AM
Author: John Pollard
I like to give balanced representation, which is why I linked subject matter from GIA, AGSL and PS.Date: 11/25/2009 2:08:38 AM
Author: Serg
John, GIA article has completely wrong statements why cutters use Painting. GIA did wrong conclusions about connections between painting-digout and yield . GIA forgot consider rough surface . I doubt what this GIA article is good for consumer education, because it has misleading information in most critical points. ( for same reason GIA early gave wrong cut grade for diamonds as *
You''re right, the GIA piece is nearly 5 years old. You may remember that Brian Gavin and I reacted strongly when it came out, and worked heavily with both GIA and AGSL to produce the third piece I linked? Reading through the different articles I trust that intelligent readers will come to intelligent conclusions.
Actually John - thank you! I had searched before but was a little overwhelmed. I will read all links with interest.
Serg - please don''t worry, I really only want to understand the very basics and this will give me a great starting point.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,461
For the benefit of many, here is an old photo - not sure where I got it.Date: 11/25/2009 1:52:22 PM
Author: Serg
Date: 11/25/2009 10:28:24 AM
Author: John Pollard
Date: 11/25/2009 2:08:38 AM
Author: Serg
John, GIA article has completely wrong statements why cutters use Painting. GIA did wrong conclusions about connections between painting-digout and yield . GIA forgot consider rough surface . I doubt what this GIA article is good for consumer education, because it has misleading information in most critical points. ( for same reason GIA early gave wrong cut grade for diamonds as *
I like to give balanced representation, which is why I linked subject matter from GIA, AGSL and PS.
You''re right, the GIA piece is nearly 5 years old. You may remember that Brian Gavin and I reacted strongly when it came out, and worked heavily with both GIA and AGSL to produce the third piece I linked? Reading through the different articles I trust that intelligent readers will come to intelligent conclusions.
John,
1)GAI article has wrong statements about reason for painting . they forgot account what increasing girdle thickness in halves Usually demand to decrease diameter . So painting is not good way to increase yield. for other reason GIA statement about dig-out was wrong too
2) Peter Y. did not discuss about yield, but his statements about spread could easy create wrong understanding for consumers about yield for painting diamonds and cutter motivation. I hope you remember my and Janak discussion with Peter about connection between Yield and painting-digout.
3) I did not find in Brain article information how painting changes yield.
So I do not see balanced representation for painting in this 3 articles. first two create consumer scare-mondering about painting. ( however most consumer will not understand last 3 pages in Peter article)
Note how bruting demands that the stone be ground down until there is a clean line for the girdle.
It is why very often the girdle has a wave in it on scan maps so the diameter can be a little larger.
Sometimes painting or digging is done to enable a part of the unbruted rough to be polished out - generally this is localized. Sometimes it is done in one spot because there is an inclusion to remove.
Often when it is done all around the stone there is a desire to improve the stone or some reason we may never know.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 14,685
Date: 11/25/2009 2:15:00 PM
Author: risingsun
Should the highlighted part read...they know that steep deep is not leakage, it is shallow pavillions....If not, than I am confused. TIA for some clarification
steep/deep == leakage
Shallow pavilions == obstruction issues
lgf% mismatch == obstruction issues
your right about the missing comma however...
no, that is not the response from the ps pro-sumers because they know that steep deep is leakage, it is shallow pavilions and or lgf% mismatches that cause obstruction issues.
risingsun
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2006
- Messages
- 5,549
Thanks so much, Karl. Now I understand. It's saved in My DocumentsDate: 11/25/2009 2:51:03 PM
Author: Karl_K
Date: 11/25/2009 2:15:00 PM
Author: risingsun
Should the highlighted part read...they know that steep deep is not leakage, it is shallow pavillions....If not, than I am confused. TIA for some clarification
steep/deep == leakage
Shallow pavilions == obstruction issues
lgf% mismatch == obstruction issues
your right about the missing comma however...
no, that is not the response from the ps pro-sumers because they know that steep deep is leakage, it is shallow pavilions and or lgf% mismatches that cause obstruction issues.
- Status
300x240.png)